 | Home > INEOS Grenadier > Main Grenadier discussion thread |
 
|
|
|
| Danny Fireblade Member Since: 16 Mar 2018 Location: Hampshire Posts: 319   
|
Has anyone asked the question about if the chassis will be galvanised or just powder coated?
|
||
17th Oct 2021 1:44pm |
|
| Bluest Member Since: 23 Apr 2016 Location: Lancashire Posts: 4208 
|
It won’t be powder coated, a completely unsuitable finish for chassis. It’s likely to be wet painted, but what anti-corrosion treatment is under the paint hasn’t been said. 2007 110 TDCi Station Wagon XS
|
||
|
17th Oct 2021 2:35pm |
|
| familymad Member Since: 13 Dec 2011 Location: Bucks Posts: 3481  
|
I’m sure I’ve read it was galv 1951 80" S1 2.0
1995 110 300TDI 1995 90 300TDI |
||
|
17th Oct 2021 3:21pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018 
|
All I can recall:
 Click image to enlarge And maybe built in collaboration /by these guys, although I had Gestamp in my head before they bought the Smart factory: Click image to enlarge |
||
|
17th Oct 2021 4:14pm |
|
| Philip Member Since: 09 Mar 2018 Location: England Posts: 510
|
An interesting development…
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/p...0003164282 |
||
|
20th Oct 2021 12:20am |
|
| ADVAW8S Member Since: 05 Oct 2021 Location: PNW Posts: 28 
|
This looks like they trademark the look for goods and services and does not fall under vehicle. Look at the definitions of what the trademark covers.
|
||
|
20th Oct 2021 2:29am |
|
| Philip Member Since: 09 Mar 2018 Location: England Posts: 510
|
Yes, I’ve read it. It’s the first instance of the three-dimensional Defender shape, which Ineos copied, being protected by way of trademark for anything.
|
||
|
20th Oct 2021 2:36am |
|
| TonyF Member Since: 13 Aug 2015 Location: Tasmania Posts: 61  
|
To me, the question is how different does another vehicle need to be to not breach the trademark? For example, if you showed the same images of Mercedes G-Wagen would it be considered sufficiently different? If so, what about the Grenadier, which might be considered closer to the LR images, but where is the cutoff? Some of my ignorant friends refer to my Defender as a Jeep. Most of my more aware friends would not mistake a Grenadier for a Defender.
|
||
|
20th Oct 2021 2:47am |
|
| HardCharger Member Since: 03 Mar 2013 Location: Manila Posts: 735  
|
I got an email from them yesterday thanking me for my interest and regretting to inform me that they cannot serve orders from my neck of the woods yet (currently located in SEA)
 |
||
|
20th Oct 2021 3:29am |
|
| TonyF Member Since: 13 Aug 2015 Location: Tasmania Posts: 61
|
What a pity, you could have remodelled it as a private jeepney.
|
||
|
20th Oct 2021 3:44am |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
How so? A quick search would have brought up this thread that covers this application: https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic70401...p;start=15 Cutting to the chase, the UK Intellectual Property Office refused JLR's application on 3rd October 2019 (21st Day of November 2018?); and then JLR had their appeal rejected at the High Court on 3rd August 2020: "At paragraph 62 of the Decision, that, for the purposes of section 3(1)(b) of the Act, the Marks lacked inherent distinctiveness in relation to any goods and services apart from those goods unrelated to motor vehicles that he identifies at paragraph 172 of the Decision;" "Accordingly, he refused the Applications in respect of all goods and services, save for some goods in Classes 9, 14, and 28. By the Decision he also refused the applications for marks comprising the shapes of the Series 1 and Series 2 Defender motor vehicles, but JLR does not appeal that part of the Decision." The link you have posted is just the upshot of this ~ JLR can make/have control over balloons, Xmas decorations, etc but not motor vehicles... Oh, and let's not forget what else was said: "At paragraph 169 of the Decision, that, for the purposes of section 3(6) of the Act, the Applications were made in bad faith in relation to vehicles other than “4 x 4 land vehicles”." JLR had to pay costs to Ineos in the IPO hearing. |
||
|
20th Oct 2021 12:32pm |
|
| AMBxx Member Since: 24 Jul 2016 Location: York Posts: 1031 
|
If JLR were to bring this up again, surely the publicity would only help Grenadier?
|
||
|
20th Oct 2021 1:27pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
I can't see it doing JLR any good, if you have the time and energy to go through the links in the original thread to the initial hearing and then the appeal, there are some really embarrassing details they probably would prefer to forget..
There was talk of JLR persuing a European case on the same or similar grounds, referenced in a thread somewhere on this Forum... I don't know if that is on going? |
||
|
20th Oct 2021 4:09pm |
|
| Philip Member Since: 09 Mar 2018 Location: England Posts: 510
|
I would suggest the only really embarrassing thing everyone would like to forget is the Grenadier’s shameless rip-off “design”.
|
||
|
20th Oct 2021 6:23pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
